Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 11 - Evidence - April 15, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, met this day at 8:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill and to consider a draft report.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators and invited guests. This morning we continue our consideration of Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord. With us today is Mr. Rod Bruinooge, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the second half of our meeting, we will hear from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represented by Patrick Brazeau, National Chief.
I will now introduce the senators. We have today: Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick; Senator Campbell from British Columbia; Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan; and Senator Gustafson from Saskatchewan.
Clause 2 of Bill C-292 states:
The Government of Canada shall immediately take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the accord, known as the ``Kelowna Accord'' that was concluded on November 25, 2005 at Kelowna, British Columbia, by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first ministers of each of the provinces and territories of Canada and the leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Metis National Council, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
Mr. Bruinooge, we welcome you this morning. Thank you for coming at this early hour. We look forward to hearing your views on the accord. Once your presentation is complete, I am sure senators will have questions of you.
Rod Bruinooge, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, Indian Affairs and Northern Development: I appreciate the opportunity to come before the Senate. It is a great honour to speak here in this chamber and before senators such as yourselves. I have spoken to a Senate committee only once before and I am thankful I received a second opportunity.
Today, I have been invited to appear before this committee and provide testimony in relation to Bill C-292, an Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.
I need to be clear from the outset that the announcement made at the conclusion of the first ministers' conference in Kelowna in November 2005 was a media communiqué with a number of promises made by a Liberal Party going into a federal election. As such, I believe there was no actual accord signed at Kelowna. This is a misnomer first coined by a national newspaper about a month later.
The facts are simple. A number of proposals were brought forward, but there was no agreement. I grew up as a young person in Canada with a number of political accords. I saw the Meech Lake Accord signed by a number of parties and the Charlottetown Accord also signed. My definition of ``accord'' has something to do with paper and signatures.
We should talk about this myth of the accord that has grown. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has become somewhat damaging. This existing myth is that the Crown has somehow broken its trust with First Nations. Often people will suggest that the honour of the Crown has been broken because this accord has been broken. Any time the myth of a signed agreement is perpetuated, I feel that it lends further credibility to this suggestion that the honour of the Crown has been damaged due to an accord being broken.
I assure the committee that our government is committed to closing the gaps between Aboriginal people and other Canadians. When it comes to education, housing, health care, social services and other key ingredients of healthy and fulfilled lives, we are delivering real measurable and tangible results, and will continue to do so by working with First Nations, Metis and Inuit leadership.
To look back at proposals by former Prime Minister Paul Martin on this front, I would argue that it would have been challenging to have those proposals come to fruition with what was suggested at Kelowna. The former government presented a dollar amount to the Canadian people in a news communiqué. This communiqué was entitled, ``Strengthening Relationships and Closing the Gap.'' The Liberal government of the day indicated it would make several investments over a period of five years. This was an investment suggestion of $5 billion that was among a bouquet of suggestions totalling in excess of $25 billion.
As a bystander at the time, I would argue that there were more promises made than dollars available. You would have to look to the 13 years in government previously to wonder if Aboriginal people would be a top priority in light of the fact that not all the election promises made could be fulfilled. Therefore, I would challenge that this promise made during that campaign would have been fulfilled.
Nonetheless, that did not come to fruition. Since that day, Mr. Martin has been clear on the amount of money he believes the federal government needs to spend to close these gaps. As I referenced already, it was $5 billion over five years. However, let me be clear: This bill does not authorize the spending of any government funds.
Will a news release help close the gaps in living standards between members of First Nations communities and other Canadians? I do not believe so. There has never been any policy associated with this news release and no cabinet direction. Unfortunately, it would not have done anything for clean water and nothing for specific claims. It certainly did not address the repealing of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Experience has taught me that if we followed the approach outlined in this bill we would have achieved little, if any, success in closing the socio-economic gaps between Aboriginal people and other Canadians. As former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Jim Prentice said in the House of Commons:
The most fundamental flaw in the bill before us today is that it does not change in any way the legislative framework that governs the relationship between Canada and First Nations peoples.
Systemic reform is what he is talking about. Do not get me wrong. I freely admit that we must invest financial resources in the programs and services that help members of First Nations communities and Aboriginal people across our country as it will improve their lives, strengthen their families and enhance their communities. However, the former Prime Minister would have us believe that it is how much we invest rather than how we invest that makes a difference.
The former Liberal government promised $5 billion that would have done nothing except pour money into a broken system that was in dire need of improvement. Our government, on the other hand, has wisely invested in the institutional developments necessary to bring the quality of life for Aboriginals up to the same standards of other Canadians. As I said before, systemic reform is what we are endeavouring to do.
One thing our government has done is to expand the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership project to provide training and skills development opportunities for thousands of Aboriginal and First Nations people. We have pledged $300 million per year on an ongoing basis to support Aboriginal communities and priorities such as education, housing, and services to women, children and families.
Within 45 days of taking office, we created and implemented an action plan to bring drinking water standards in First Nations' communities up to par with those in the rest of the country. At that time, unfortunately, we inherited 193 drinking water systems serving First Nations communities that were classified as high-risk or worse. Today, that number stands at 85 and continues to fall.
The $450 million we devoted to improve supplies of safe drinking water on reserve was part of $3.7 billion that was budgeted in 2006 to support Aboriginal peoples and First Nations communities. That is $3.7 billion additional dollars; more new funds than any previous budget and more new funds than the previous four budgets put together. It is a remarkable 500 per cent more than former Prime Minister Martin's 2005 budget.
Frankly, Mr. Chair, I believe the most enduring success for Aboriginal and First Nations people will not be the product of these initiatives or any other expenditure sponsored by the federal government. We are convinced the efforts that will bear the most fruit are those we are taking with our provincial, territorial and Aboriginal partners to help Aboriginal and First Nations people become more self-reliant and assume greater control over their lives and destinies.
Four examples of this transformative work come immediately to mind. First, this government reached an agreement last year with the Government of Alberta and First Nations communities in the province on a prevention-based child and family services model. This model is now being implemented for First Nations communities throughout Alberta, and discussions are under way with other provinces to reach similar arrangements, including my own province of Manitoba.
Second, our government has introduced, and Parliament has passed, legislation that allows participating First Nations school authorities in British Columbia to develop curricula firmly founded on their communities' rich history and culture. It is also being used as a model by other provinces, including Manitoba.
Third, this government is settling specific claims with First Nations communities at a record pace — 54 of them in 2007, alone. We have also introduced a piece of legislation to establish an independent body for resolutions of specific claims. That body, of course, is something that this Senate committee has called for on a number of occasions.
We are excited by moving forward with this important reform, Bill C-30, which is currently before the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. If passed without amendment, this legislation will reduce dramatically the backlog of specific claims that currently tie up both the department and the courts.
Another one of our successes is a negotiation and settlement of claims that was passed earlier into law: The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, a statute that gives force to an agreement that settles the last major Inuit land claim in Canada. The last time I met with the Senate it was on this historic bill. I appreciate the fact that you passed this bill soon after my appearance here.
We also reached an historic agreement with the Grand Council of the Crees, which put an end to years of controversy over the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. We have transferred more than 150,000 acres of land in Manitoba to First Nations in addition to a treaty land entitlement claim in Alberta that includes 140,000 acres of land.
Perhaps the most profound action of this government's transformative work, though, is the Indian Residential School Settlement agreement, which was completed within one month of our government first sitting in the House of Commons. This government worked closely with former students and Aboriginal organizations to reach this final conclusion and is working closely with them to implement it.
We are doing this work because it is important for the future of Aboriginal people in this country that we achieve a fair and lasting resolution to the sad legacy of Indian residential schools. I am convinced that this historic agreement, and in particular the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that will flow from the agreement, will be an important statement of apology and reconciliation for all Aboriginal people in Canada.
I believe these examples of our work are the kind of prudent, honest and forthright steps required to empower Aboriginal people to overcome the daunting challenges they face, to help them achieve greater reliance and to enable them to assume greater control over their lives, and their futures within their family and their communities.
At the same time, however, I can see that much more work remains to be done. Genuine progress does not lie in the presentation of pre-election news releases but, rather, in the important and tangible work that is done through the efforts of all people, and Aboriginal people themselves.
I will quote from a few recent articles that have been written. The Gazette in Montreal from April 11, 2008 said the former prime minister's ``approach to Indian affairs was wrong when he was prime minister, and it is wrong still.'' The article goes on to say that the former prime minister
. . . came up with Kelowna, another enormous handout with few strings attached, which would have in effect increased the power of the same structure of chiefs who — with some honourable exceptions — have presided over so many hopeless decades on so many reserves.
The article goes on to talk about a number of approaches that the former prime minister has made, including his suggestion that the only approach to avoiding chaos is really his way or the highway, not to mention suggestions that action, leading up to a day of action, could take place if his suggestions are not taken.
I find that view unfortunate in light of the fact that we, as a government, endeavour each day to try to ensure that Aboriginal Canadians are able to achieve important successful outcomes in their communities. We, of course, endeavour to avoid chaos that might come from a day of action, which has been suggested by some. I took offence to the statements by the former prime minister on that front.
Governing responsibly involves establishing clear priorities, allocating appropriate funds, setting ambitious goals and then working hard to achieve them. That is what we have done in the 28 months since that meeting in Kelowna and that is exactly what we will continue to do in the months and years to come.
As to whether I believe this bill should be passed, the answer is no. However, I imagine that it likely will be passed. That said, I will continue to work on the real and tangible progress that we have made as a government and I look forward to having the opportunity to come before your committee in the future to speak to other pieces of legislation.
Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to responding to any questions or comments you might have.
Senator Campbell: Thank you for coming here today, Mr. Bruinooge.
Since you quoted from newspapers, I am a little confused about the lack of recognition of this accord. Minister Prentice, for whom this committee has a huge degree of respect, is on record in the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network in January, 2006, at the height of the federal election. He said:
. . . I am the party spokesman on the Kelowna accord and let's be perfectly clear for the viewers of your network. We are supportive of Kelowna. We are supportive of the targets and objectives that were set at Kelowna.
Now we are the position where there is no accord, period. How do you reconcile those two positions?
Mr. Bruinooge: I think Minister Prentice's comments hold true in terms of our government's approach to wanting to achieve important outcomes for First Nations people across the country. I can speak to suggestions and proposals that were brought out at those first ministers meetings, on housing in particular.
This government has invested considerably in that area: $450 million over the last few years. The point I and a number of other individuals, both within the government and also in the media, are making is that the proposals that came from that first ministers' meeting were policy ideas that the former government wanted to pursue. That approach is valid within a democracy. The bone of contention that I and others have put forward is to insinuate that an agreement was achieved amongst the leaders present and, further to that, the new government has broken this signed agreement. It is damaging to the general relations between Aboriginal communities and the government.
For instance, at that first ministers meeting, there was not a signed agreement that had consensus amongst the groups there as to how the money would be spent. In part, this is because the amount of money suggested was $5 billion. Both on- and off-reserve groups were present.
In this role as parliamentary secretary, I will admit that there is considerable debate as to how resources are spent both on and off reserve. It is not surprising, therefore, that the groups that took part in that meeting were unable to come to a consensus. As such, it was unavoidable that no agreement could be made.
Senator Campbell: With all due respect, you are rambling all over the place. The question that I have is in the final policy conference prior to the election, in the election campaign, the Conservative Party candidate committed to meeting the targets set out in Kelowna.
Jim Prentice, who was the Minister of Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at the time, made the commitment after you formed the government. Is the government still committed to those targets as set out in Kelowna? That is all I want to know.
Surely there must be at least some good things in this accord or Minister Prentice would not have said, ``We are supportive of Kelowna. We are supportive of the targets and objectives that were set at Kelowna.''
How do we match up those positions? On one hand, he says, we are supportive of the targets and objectives, we are supportive of Kelowna; and now the whole thing goes out the window. How do you make those positions come together?
Mr. Bruinooge: The approach that was taken at that meeting suggested that gaps needed to be closed between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada. Two areas that were suggested as gaps were education and housing. The approach to closing those gaps is the real philosophical difference between our government and the former government.
The $5 billion was suggested to enable an existing system to maintain the status quo, whereas our government has taken a different approach. We see that investment is needed; however, the actual system needs to be improved.
Although the idea of improving the gaps or closing the gaps is one that we agree with, the means and the approach of closing those gaps is the philosophical difference between our government and the former government. That is why we have taken a different path.
Senator Sibbeston: I do not feel that you come here with a great deal of passion or commitment to the issue of Aboriginal people. I do not know who you are, but in particular, when you say that the former Prime Minister is wrong, I do not know how you can say that. I think any money devoted to Aboriginal people to help them is never wrong. There are so many areas in the lives and situations of Aboriginal peoples where more money would help.
Last week when Mr. Martin was here, we received financial information with respect to the amount of money that would have been committed under Kelowna and what the present government is spending. The only area that this government is doing reasonably well in is in the area of housing. You have provided almost as much money as you would have under the Kelowna Accord for housing and infrastructure. In the other areas, your government is spending so much less.
Money for education, as an example, is needed. Education is what can take Native people from the igloo and the tepee right to the high levels of the boardrooms in our government. In the Northwest Territories, where I am from, this is the case. We have people who have come from the land and in only one generation, through education, they have become doctors, social workers and lawyers. This was made possible through the education system.
When your government does not come through with money for things as important as education, I feel that you are lacking something. You are not making a good decision. Also, it offends me somewhat for you to say that someone like Mr. Martin is wrong. What do you say to that?
The Chair: I would like to clarify. As the chair, I have the privilege of the chair.
Senator Sibbeston: What is the problem with the question?
The Chair: You want to know who he is. He is a parliamentary secretary.
Senator Sibbeston: Besides that?
The Chair: He is a Metis from Manitoba.
Senator Sibbeston: I want to know his background. Who is he to say that the former Prime Minister is wrong?
The Chair: I am trying to explain that background to you.
Senator Sibbeston: Let him explain.
Mr. Bruinooge: I would be happy to do so.
The Chair: It is part of the responsibility of the chair. Had you been here on time, you would have heard his opening remarks.
Senator Sibbeston: You are being partisan and unduly sensitive.
The Chair: No; you are the one that is picking on the witness.
Senator Sibbeston: I am not. I am asking him an honest question. He comes with nothing; he only reads from a paper.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr. Bruinooge, you have the floor.
Mr. Bruinooge: Thank you, Mr. Chair; I appreciate the question. Senator Sibbeston, I do not know you either and I will not challenge your interest in Aboriginal issues or your passion for what is an important policy element of all the work that we do here in the House of Commons. However, I do not appreciate you challenging my own passion for Aboriginal issues.
Senator Sibbeston: You have none. You do not show any.
Mr. Bruinooge: Perhaps I tend to speak in a low key way. However, being an Aboriginal from northern Manitoba and having grown up among my good friends in both the First Nations and Inuit communities and being Metis myself, as an Aboriginal Canadian, I feel that I have some credibility on this issue. In fact, I think I have a lot.
What is most important to me is seeing new outcomes for Aboriginal people. We have a system that continues to deliver the same outcomes year after year, and nothing changes. We have a broken system.
When I ran for the House of Commons in 2006 as an Aboriginal candidate for our party, I decided that I would do so on the basis of attempting to fix a broken system. I could not agree with the proposals that came out of Kelowna. I am happy to see more money invested. However, not addressing the systemic reform issues — simply enabling a broken system and saying that the status quo is fine — is the worst approach we can take. We need to have the viewpoint that the system itself is what needs to be changed. I am pleased to be part of a government that looks at systemic reform.
You talked about some of our investments but not all of them. We put aside $2.5 billion toward creating a new system of dealing with specific claims, which, as you know, is a major outstanding issue among First Nations leaders throughout the country. By creating this independent specific claims tribunal, we will see a new system of resolution that is outside the government's control. Aboriginal people across the country complained about how the government was both judge and jury in dealing with specific claims.
Another systemic reform that I am excited about is extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to First Nations people. This change is something that this Senate has suggested to the House of Commons for a number of years. The fact that First Nations people, unlike myself, do not have access to the Canadian Human Rights Act is a shameful situation that has existed for 30 years. This initiative was one of the first ones we took on as a government, namely, to bring about this change of extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to First Nations people. Now, like me — another Aboriginal person who has access to the Canadian Human Rights Act — we will all have that same access and all First Nations people can bring our claims forward.
I know there are many First Nations people throughout the country that are in communities where they have situations that one would argue are human rights violations. Right now, they cannot bring those claims forward.
Chair, I like to think that I am passionate about these issues. I hope that I have demonstrated that passion to you today. In the future, I look forward to continuing to bring my passion to this committee.
The Chair: Are there other questions, Senator Sibbeston? We have always operated in good spirits here, and in a non-partisan way. Let us continue that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Mr. Bruinooge, have you ever been to a First Nations community?
Mr. Bruinooge: Yes, I visited First Nations communities on a number of occasions when I was growing up.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: In which part of the country?
Mr. Bruinooge: I was born in Thompson, Manitoba. I had many friends and family that lived in various communities around there.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: As far as we know, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs works for First Nations peoples. Is that correct?
Mr. Bruinooge: That is correct.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You mentioned that millions of dollars go into First Nations communities. I go home every weekend to my First Nation and to First Nations that surround my First Nation. I see mouldy schools that the children attend. Children often are affected by the mould and they become sick. There is still no education or new people going to the schools. As well, there is no housing. I have not seen new housing in those communities for several years. Some First Nations are in co-management. If enough money was going into these communities, none of this would be happening. There would be new schools and the children would receive an education. I do not think enough money is going into these First Nations. The Kelowna Accord gave my people hope. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Bruinooge: I appreciate that many communities find themselves in situations where they are unable to deliver some of the resources they would like for their communities. This issue goes to the heart of our department's current delivery system in Canada. There is no question that not enough dollars end up in the communities. I believe that to be case.
However, ensuring that these resources go to the communities is not a question of the amount of resources but rather a question of the system from which the resources are delivered. I spoke about this issue earlier.
Focussing on education and one of the points that you raised, the Government of British Columbia, the leadership of First Nations in British Columbia and the federal government came together on a specific piece of legislation. The Senate has endorsed this proposal for a new system of governance of education for First Nations people on reserve. This model will allow communities across the country to improve the outcomes at the primary and secondary level. Unfortunately, Manitoba has a success rate of less than 35 per cent in high schools amongst First Nations people. There needs to be a whole new approach to the way education is delivered on reserve.
The model in British Columbia sets up a new governance system whereby a provincial body will set curriculum for secondary schools. Currently, in Canada, we have a myriad of country schools that all abide by their own practices and curriculums. I do not deny the autonomy of communities to deliver education in that way, should they choose to do so. However, as the nation has seen, having a degree of curriculum and standards is, at the least, an approach to raising the level of education. I was pleased to see what has occurred in British Columbia as systemic reform, and, as a member of the government, I am attempting to bring that same philosophy to other provinces. Manitoba has shown an interest, as has Nova Scotia. Ideally, we will implement the idea of systemic reform and not only investments that I argue represented the proposals that resulted from Kelowna.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Now that you have admitted that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is supposed to take care of First Nations people, why is it when there is a day of action, the First Nations face the threat of the government withholding their funding? It is their money, is it not?
Mr. Bruinooge: In respect of the day of action, it is important for legislators to suggest to First Nations individuals that consideration of such a protest is not in the best interest of Canada's collective union. We are endeavouring to bring resolution to issues that might cause First Nations citizens to consider the action that you talked about. The dollars spent through the Government of Canada are on behalf of First Nations people. However, we also endeavour to ensure that the dollars are spent as efficiently as possible on behalf of those who invest in the Parliament of Canada's machine called ``government.'' As a legislator, I endeavour to ensure that we find the most efficient way to deliver those dollars to have the best outcomes. That is why I argue that systemic reform is my number one mantra in the mantra of our government in this respect.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: It is only a day of action. We did not plan on having a war or anything. It does not make sense to me.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Bruinooge, in your presentation, you appeared to categorize Kelowna as a press release at the end of a meeting. I believe that 18 months of consultation led up to that meeting with all the provinces, the territories and First Nations governance. Are you saying that all the agreements they made were irrelevant as well?
Mr. Bruinooge: I do not suggest that meetings did not occur prior to that final meeting in Kelowna and I do not suggest that the discussions held over a number of months previous to that meeting were not valid. However, in the statement I read before this committee, I suggested that to insinuate that an accord was authored and signed at Kelowna creates a false impression of what occurred. I do not deny that a number of people came together and agreed with then Prime Minister Paul Martin that the $5 billion would be well received.
However, I have said that when this myth of a signed accord is perpetuated, scenarios tend to arise such that people have insinuated that I have somehow dishonoured the Crown of Queen Elizabeth by breaking a written, signed agreement between the Government of Canada and the other parties involved. Simply put, I cannot accept that fact. That was the point that I made in my statement.
I do not deny that the proposals that came from those Kelowna meetings were valid from a certain perspective. The former government campaigned on them in that previous election, in a democracy. The proposals were valid perspectives, but not ones I agreed with.
Senator Peterson: Do you feel that the provinces, the territories and the First Nations governance also think the Kelowna Accord is a myth?
Mr. Bruinooge: I suggest that they have never said there was a signed accord, because there is not one. Some entities that you spoke of might let the myth continue for their own political gain. However, to suggest that they would come before a committee and argue that a signed accord occurred there, I would say they would not because that would be deceptive.
Senator Peterson: I suppose we will hear from them on that.
Mr. Chair, do we have a list of the 54 specific claims that have been approved since 2006?
The Chair: No.
Senator Peterson: Can we have that list?
The Chair: I am sure Mr. Bruinooge can supply us with the list or have the department supply us with it.
I will make this request of you, Mr. Bruinooge. If you can supply the list, it would be greatly appreciated. If you forward the list to me, as chair of the committee, or to the committee itself, I will see that it is distributed to the members of this committee.
Mr. Bruinooge: I will do that.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: My questions will start from a strategic perspective and will be more specific later.
[English]
In your text, near the end, you say that governing responsibility involves establishing clear priorities, allocating appropriate funds, setting ambitious goals and then working hard to achieve them.
I am not sure why you want to lecture senators on your role. We take that role as a given. In fact, you had better do that or you will be thrown out of office. We did not need to be told what your job is.
However, in your text, you run through a whole bunch of tactical-level, incremental examples and you say you believe that your work is exactly the kind of prudent, decisive, innovative steps that are required to empower Aboriginal people to overcome the daunting challenges they face and to help them achieve greater self-reliance and greater control over their lives.
If I look at the background document prepared by the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Indian Act that you, as a government, operate under, it reads under the title of ``1876-1996: A Very Brief History'':
. . . the first consolidated Indian Act reflected the government's preoccupation with land management, First Nations membership and local government, and the ultimate goal of assimilation . . . .
Why are you working on self-reliance and greater control over their future, when I have not seen anywhere that you are prepared to take on the Indian Act and eliminate it, for it is totally contrary to the ultimate aim that you say you are attempting to achieve?
Mr. Bruinooge: In relation to that specific question, first, I suggest that self-reliance is a fundamental principle that I share, and I believe most people of our government share. I cannot speak for other parties, such as the one you are part of. However, I know that self-reliance, for me, as an Aboriginal, is the ultimate example of being able to work with true liberty in this country. I feel that liberty is the most important thing that one can have. When we rely on anything, including the Government of Canada, we tend not to appreciate those same liberties that are shared by others who have self-reliance. As a philosophy, it is one that I hope will be well received by other Aboriginal people in our great country.
To move on to the Indian Act, which you spoke of, I agree with you that the Indian Act, in its very nature, does not help achieve self-reliance for First Nations people who live under it. We have taken one initiative in relation to the Indian Act, something that I referenced already, which is the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which provides the Indian Act with cover from the purview of the Canadian Human Rights Act. By removing that section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we, in essence, allow the provisions of the Indian Act to come under the purview of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We allow First Nations people on reserve, in the event they feel that their human rights are violated, to take those claims to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Senator Dallaire: We agree with respect to self-reliance. I do not debate that. However, if you are looking for and expressing a more holistic attempt at achieving self-reliance, then why undertake the incremental exercises on the Indian Act, which all previous governments have undertaken for the last hundred years, and why not take on the act in your sense of responsibility of giving First Nations greater self-reliance and freedom?
It is interesting that when we embark on international development, we work on education of the youth, as a fundamental premise; we work on empowerment of women; we work on reconciliation and respect; and we work extensively — in fact, we have a bill trying to reinforce that — on fighting abject poverty. That is how we want to build and assist these nations abroad.
How is it that you say the Kelowna proposal, which attempts to manoeuvre exactly those objectives, throws cash at a problem instead of achieving self-reliance and more depth, security and independence for those nations that are negotiating with the Crown of Canada?
Mr. Bruinooge: Before I answer that question, I will go back to your former point in relation to the Indian Act. One piece of legislation from a previous administration, the one that was in office prior to former Prime Minister Martin, when Minister Robert Nault brought forth the bill for the First Nations governance act, I thought that bill was a fantastic one. However, it was set aside immediately when Prime Minister Martin took office.
Unfortunately, the approach that is taken within this Kelowna proposal is one that, as you said, throws money at a system that does not deliver the outcomes that we desire. For one to believe that a system that delivers poor outcomes can be changed simply by more investment is irrational. Changes need to be made to the delivery model and to the way that First Nations people are able to have their own sense of accountability and governance within their communities. That model is the biggest thing that we, as legislators, struggle with and work towards. I have a philosophical difference with the approach taken by this bill towards improving those outcomes relative to our own.
Senator Dallaire: It is great to provide self-reliance, but if the education system to sustain it in those groups is not to establish and sustain greater self-reliance and control, if they are not able to listen to their elders and to evolve in a more progressive way, and if they do not have the housing or even the water to enable them to live decently, then you cannot bring them to the next level of international development, which is self-reliance, because they are not even at the basic poverty line. It seems to me that you desire a great aim.
You do not want to attack the substantive problem; take on the Indian Act, crash that whole process and bring in new objective methodologies and fundamental principles. You want to leap ahead to self-reliance before giving First Nations peoples the basic needs to leave what the rest of the world considers impossible scenarios for people to even reach first base in self-reliance because they are so poor.
I come back to Kelowna, which is essentially an instrument to reduce and eliminate the fundamentals of poverty: education, housing and so on. People can then take on self-reliance objectives.
Interestingly, the Kelowna Accord calls for both the means and the political will to realize Aboriginal people's vision of their place in the country. That is self-reliance; nations as equals.
Why do you not take this step, which is a first step even in an international-development premise? Why do you not sit on it for a little while instead of crashing it, insulting it and throwing it by the side? Why do you not say, okay, that has been worked on; we want to take another look at this thing; and we do not need to implement it tomorrow morning? The budget lines can be adjusted. Take it from there and build your second stage from that, which is the ultimate self-reliance exercise.
Why do you crash all that work — because they are Liberals and not because of content — and say you will bring in a better system starting from scratch? I see no logic in any of the political party processes doing something like that. With the study having been done, why do you not take whatever is out there, review it and then adjust it? Why do you crash it?
The Chair: Please make the answer short. I have two more questioners.
Mr. Bruinooge: I will go back to the time where I was sitting in a chair at a committee meeting and the former Prime Minister, Paul Martin, came before our committee. I asked the question: Could you present a copy of the Kelowna Accord for me to consider and perhaps implement if I found that content that you are suggesting?
Unfortunately, Senator Dallaire, there was no Kelowna Accord presented to me when I asked for it for consideration. My suggestion is: As a government how can we implement the content when we have not received a document called the Kelowna Accord? We have received a number of $5 billion, and I will be the first to argue that more investment is necessary. We have made that investment. We put in an additional $3.7 billion since coming into office, starting with our 2006 budget.
However, we feel that not only is investment necessary, but we must also make real improvements in areas where they are needed, such as education. When we feel we have a system that can accommodate this investment, we can then proceed.
My point then is that I have not received the content you are speaking of.
Senator Dallaire: All these civil servants do not work a year and a half and produce nothing. A whole archive of work brought them to Kelowna that could be used to build upon. Even if you do not have an implementation plan, you have a context in which it could be used.
How will enhancing and imposing a more demanding audit trail on the structures of the Aboriginal people enhance their capability to achieve greater self-reliance?
Mr. Bruinooge: The vast majority of First Nations people I have met are calling for greater accountabilities in their governance. All constituents of First Nations people deserve an accountable government. I know government leaders in First Nations communities want to deliver the most accountable government they can.
To have the opportunity to assist them in delivering sound governance is a good thing. For a government to ensure that dollars put into First Nations communities go towards the things needed is reasonable to ask for.
The Chair: When Mr. Martin appeared before us, I believe his main focus was the educational segment of the discussions that surrounded the Kelowna Accord. He spoke of the relationship established between provincial, territorial and Aboriginal leaders across the country.
On page 6 of your delivery here this morning, it says:
We are convinced that the efforts that will bear the most fruit are those we are taking with our provincial, territorial and Aboriginal partners. . . .
Some good always comes out of any discussion. You have indicated that reality this morning. In Mr. Martin's heart of hearts, I think he believes there was good that came out of those discussions, and I am sure there was.
Can you tell the committee, further to the First Nations school authorities in British Columbia and the legislation that was passed through the other place and the Senate, what further steps can be taken to further this education issue along?
Many of us here have studied the Aboriginal issue for several years. Some of us have been on this committee for a long time. Education ties in with economic development. The economic-development sector of the Kelowna Accord discussions was small, but the fact is that education was a predominant factor.
Is the government at the present time accelerating this issue forward so that First Nations can have a proper educational system put into place that is not working under the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs? I agree with Senator Dallaire that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is not serving its constituency well. This situation is not a reflection on any government. It is a creation that happened. It has been there for over 100 years. Liberals have governed for a long time, so have Conservatives, and nothing has changed. Can you see any change coming that will accelerate this process?
Mr. Bruinooge: I concur that we need better outcomes, specifically in relation to primary and secondary education on First Nations reserves. I believe that currently in my home province, as I have indicated, we have an unfortunate success rate. As probably many around this table know, when Aboriginal people do not achieve high-school graduation, they have a 70-per-cent chance of ending up incarcerated in one of our criminal institutions. This correlation is an unfortunate one.
If we can deliver better outcomes, one hopes that we will see a change in that number as well. Therefore, I need to go back to your home province — though you were originally from Manitoba, and we were sorry to lose you, you now call British Columbia home. British Columbia has an incredible model that we were involved in the development of. However, it is incumbent upon me — as a representative of the Government of Canada — to communicate that successful model that British Columbia has brought to fruition and convince other provinces to buy into that model. Then we can see new governance in First Nation communities in relation to their high schools, specifically. Hopefully we will then have the outcomes we are all looking for.
Senator Hubley: I have a lot of difficulty with the statement ``that the so-called Kelowna accord was nothing more than a press release with false promises in advance of a federal election call.''
Cynicism is a dangerous thing. The accord is of great importance to Canada, and I believe that statement somehow misrepresents the whole process that the federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments — the view, hope, aim and goals — want to achieve by coming together in this fashion. That is your statement. In some of your following statements, you balanced that in no way satisfactorily, but you tried.
I want to go back to education. I think that every Canadian has a right to an education, and I believe that every Canadian includes all Canadians, our Aboriginal people. To walk away from an agreement that in some way put the issues on the table in a public forum — it was transparent — I am disappointed that there is no alternate plan now. There is still a 35 per cent success rate with a 70 per cent failure rate. That is not acceptable.
If we only talk about it and use the same rhetoric that our learned chair used with every government in the past, we are not providing a service as Canadians.
I do not sense that listening to what you want gives Aboriginal people in our native communities a lot of hope, encouragement and reassurance that things will change. We are working in partnerships. I do not think change will be achieved by one group of people. I do not think the federal or the provincial governments have the answer. Maybe the native communities do. However, by working together and putting those partnerships in place, we may have hope. You may wish to respond to this comment or move to another questioner.
Mr. Bruinooge: I will respond briefly to your question and statement.
Going back to your initial statement, my position is in relation to the outcomes of the initial Kelowna meeting that occurred in the fall of 2005. No agreement was reached, not necessarily because they did not have pens, paper or a document to sign. Rather, no agreement was reached because there was no consensus as to how the suggested dollar amount would be allocated. A number of interest groups from both on- and off-reserve populations — all Aboriginal — had differing viewpoints on how those resources should be allocated. That difference was probably the biggest reason why no agreement was reached.
Going forward, it is important that we address the issue that a substantial off-reserve population finds it difficult to transition into the urban centres they live within. We need to give that issue major consideration going forward.
In relation to education, a lot of parents decide to put their students in schools outside the reserve community, in part due to the outcomes there. That decision alone is an indictment of the current system.
I personally want to ensure that we bring the new system of governance to other parts of our country that we see on the West Coast.
Senator Sibbeston: I had a chance to look at the funding that would have been provided to Aboriginal people from 2006 to 2010. Under the Kelowna Accord, $1.2 billion would have been provided, and in the present government, only $90 million will be provided. That amount is substantially less.
Recognizing that you, as an Aboriginal person, are in a unique position of influence and perhaps have the power to do something about matters such as this one, can you do something about it? Can you commit to the Aboriginal people of our country to do something to increase funding for education?
Mr. Bruinooge: In relation to your suggestion that there is only $90 million of additional funding, that is not correct. An additional $3.7 billion was allocated in Budget 2006 to support Aboriginal Peoples and First Nations communities. That is a remarkable increase of 500 per cent over all budgets previous to that one, four put together by the previous government.
We made a large, new investment. Of course, the promise that was made by the previous Liberal government was one of a number of promises. The suggestion I made earlier was that the Liberal government had a bouquet of promises totalling over $25 billion, and not all of them could have been delivered. The former Martin government would have had to set a priority had they won office, which they did not.
Of all the promises they made, would they have chosen the $5 billion for Kelowna? Based on their record from previous years of power, I suggest they would not have. We will never know. That is only my opinion.
Senator Sibbeston: I think Mr. Bruinooge is including the money for residential schools in this figure, and I think it is not fair or accurate to say this money is for education.
The Chair: Your point is taken. Mr. Bruinooge, we thank you for appearing this morning. We know you have another appointment. We appreciate the fact that you came early. We thank you for your presentation and your candid, straightforward responses to the senators' questions. As we go along during our deliberations, hopefully the constituency we are all trying to serve will benefit. If dialogue helps this process along, I am sure this committee meeting will be part of it.
We will now recess for five minutes and go in camera. I need a motion to allow staff to remain while we are in camera.
Senator Campbell: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chair: We have with us today Patrick Brazeau, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Welcome, Mr. Brazeau, and thank you for accepting the committee's invitation to offer your testimony in respect of the Kelowna Accord. Please proceed with your presentation, which will be followed by questions from senators.
Patrick Brazeau, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you, Senator St. Germain. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss Bill C-292 on the Kelowna Accord and the facts behind this initiative.
[Translation]
I appear before the committee as the youngest national Aboriginal leader in Canada. The future of young Aboriginals and their place in Canadian society are of paramount importance to myself and to the organization I head. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has a long history of defending the interests of Canadian Aboriginals living off- reserve, who have been marginalized and forgotten by government. I live outside the reserve and have done so almost all of my life. My parents made me a proud member of the Algonquin nation, a Quebecer and a federalist.
[English]
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, CAP, is a national body whose membership is derived from affiliation with like-minded provincial organizations. We strive to be inclusive and to break down the barriers imposed on our people by the Indian Act, which discriminates on the basis of race and gender. The divisions are deep and painful. The membership of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is comprised of what are termed 6-1s and 6-2s, C-31s, status and non-status, each different versions of Indian status depending on the twists and turns of the Indian Act. Outside the Indian Act, there are Metis peoples who help comprise CAP membership. For what it is worth, I did not become an Indian, as you understand the term, until after 1985.
Thanks to the legislative morass that is the Indian Act, my constituency forms the basis of a great deal of conflict and jurisdictional debate between federal, provincial and municipal governments, and First Nations band councils across Canada. I am painfully aware that my comments today will place me in a minority position relative to the presentations you have heard from many other commentators across the Aboriginal horizon. Frankly, my constituency is so accustomed to being treated as a troublesome minority by governments that I am proud to stand apart and reflect a different, more pragmatic position on the Kelowna Accord and Mr. Martin's proposed legislation in respect of it.
I will repeat some of the comments I shared with your colleagues in the other place because it is important that people understand how our current position on the Kelowna Accord has evolved.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples was initially enthusiastic about the intent of the round table process that led to the Kelowna Accord. We participated fully. At the outset, the Kelowna endeavour was an offer of inclusion and accommodation, and a pursuit that aimed to rise above partisan politics both at the parliamentary level throughout the machinery of government and across five recognized national Aboriginal organizations.
To help frame our discussions, important numbers need to be repeated. The recent Statistics Canada release of the 2006 Census data has confirmed what we have known for years. Only 26 per cent of Aboriginal Canadians live on reserve. One new statistic was released by Statistics Canada last week: The largest growing Aboriginal population in Canada is non-status Indians. This single group is expected to increase by 77 per cent by 2026. These numbers are important because they should compel government to rethink their spending priorities. I emphasize this point on the record for greater certainty: We do not wish to diminish the accommodations made for our brothers and sisters who live on reserve. Clearly, challenges need to be addressed. However, we remain unconvinced that money, and lots of it, is the answer to the challenges that confront all Aboriginal peoples, regardless of residency.
In the final weeks of the round table process, CAP was profoundly discouraged and resoundingly disheartened to see that the government-of-the-day had abandoned an important component of the round table process dealing with accountability. This was not the first time that a Liberal government had balked at dealing with accountability for Aboriginal programs and services.
The private member, who was the author of this bill, when running for the leadership of his party in 2003, characterized an important accountability initiative of his own government as having ``poisoned the well of Aboriginal relations.'' This was a sad day for Canada and its First Nations citizens. I was directly involved in the Liberal government's initiative to bring basic accountability and structure to First Nations communities. Many people saw that bill as a beacon of hope for a better future.
At the time when the First Nations Governance Act was abandoned, Mr. Martin and the Assembly of First Nations promised us a better way of dealing with accountability issues. We are still waiting. In light of this need, was Kelowna the answer? Clearly, it was not.
With respect to federal investments in Aboriginal programming, CAP recently completed an analysis of federal spending in a report called, Where Does the Money Go? In the absence of a clear and easy access report card for Aboriginal program spending, we took the initiative to review thousands of federal grants and contributions in an effort to understand the funding environment better. In the course of our review, we identified over 6,000 grants and contributions by 30 federal departments to over 2,000 recipients. We learned through our review that the government's reporting system is deeply flawed. As a consequence, we were able to account for only $5.6 billion of the reported $10 billion in Aboriginal spending. Perhaps the most fundamental trend to emerge is that a review ended up posing more questions than it answered.
All the questions raised are relevant to the committee's current deliberations on Bill C-292. In the interest of saving time, I have attached these questions as an appendix to this presentation, which, I apologize, you will receive later this afternoon from the clerk. These questions and answers form the substance of our objection to the final version of the so-called Kelowna Accord. Simply put, the issue is all about a fundamental lack of accountability. Sadly, many of my counterparts in other national Aboriginal organizations dismiss my calls for greater accountability, transparency and responsibility.
[Translation]
In particular, my First Nations colleagues are quick to reject government efforts aimed at achieving greater accountability. Instead, they point to the criticisms made by the Auditor General on reporting procedures for Aboriginal programs and services. But relying solely on accountability in that sense only serves to overlook the question of the ten billion dollars. Practically all the Auditor General's reports contain a comment highlighting a current problem with Aboriginal programs and services, the problem being the lack of clearly defined roles, responsibilities and authority for the implementation of those programs and services.
[English]
The Kelowna Accord promised big money. It created expectations for national Aboriginal organizations, provinces, First Nations and the federal bureaucracy. However, did we do our homework to ensure that the money would be directed to the priorities, programs and services that adequately reflected the real truth of Aboriginal realities on the basis of existing data? Let us be frank: We did not. Honourable senators, the fact remains that all Kelowna stakeholders had begun to slice and digest the pie before it was cooked.
The absence of an accountability framework, the lack of clarity on roles, responsibilities and mandates, and excess expectations about who would receive how much and for what would generate unhealthy competition for those resources and result in clear winners and losers within the Aboriginal community.
Please permit me to ask a most germane question. Twenty six years after section 35 was entrenched in Canada's Constitution enabling the Government of Canada to recognize the Metis as Aboriginal peoples of Canada, there is still no functional definition of who is and who is not a Metis in Canada. This being the case, how can the Government of Canada know that the amount of funding allocated for Metis peoples in the Kelowna Accord was the right amount of money to address the needs of that population? The reality is that Metis and non-status Indians are at the heart of federal-provincial conflict over Aboriginal programs and services.
CAP is currently litigating the unfinished business surrounding this issue in Daniels v. Canada. Our goal in launching this action is the recognition of Metis and non-status Indians as a federal responsibility under section 91.24 of the Constitution of Canada. In so doing, we hope to have the courts put a stop to the jurisdictional wrangling by federal and provincial governments for Metis and non-status Indians and their programs and services. We do so in the face of promises broken and commitments ignored by Kelowna's architects. In his reply to the February 2004 Speech from the Throne, a former prime minister said:
With our partners, we will tackle head on the particular problems faced by the increasing number of urban Aboriginal people and by the Métis. We will not allow ourselves to be caught up in jurisdictional wrangling, passing the buck and bypassing their needs.
If Kelowna bore fruits that achieved this lofty promise, I fail to see them. I was there and no such measures emerged from the first minister's meeting that achieved this noble objective. Remember: Only 26 per cent of Canada's Aboriginal population live on reserve. Based on our tracking of federal grants and contributions, we estimate that 92 per cent of the funding goes to band councils and their service delivery organizations or representative organizations. We have no idea how much money the provinces spend to address the needs of Aboriginal Canadians. As bad as the federal spending reporting system is, the provincial reporting systems appear to be nonexistent.
With respect to the machinery of government, Treasury Board policies and guidelines are filled with direction to government about the need for due diligence, evidence-based decision-making and the appropriate allocation of resources based on priority and need. The Canadian public has become openly hostile and mistrustful of program spending that places political expediencies above the principles of sound government. From our perspective, Kelowna evolved not as an opportunity for inclusion and accommodation but as a political expediency.
In closing, the concept of self-government is important to Aboriginal Canadians. Currently, our organization is endeavouring to build systems of government and program and service delivery organizations right across the country. I will not lie to you: It is a real struggle to do so and do so correctly, but we are bound and determined to succeed. While we struggle to find the balance between traditional and modern concepts of governance, the Government of Canada remains not only our principle funder but also an example of a standard for acceptable governance practices and a potential example of best practice.
I urge you, as parliamentarians, to consider what Aboriginal Canadians will learn from your example if this bill is approved in the absence of an honest resolution of the issues of lack of accountability measures.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Good morning, Mr. Brazeau. Where do you live?
Mr. Brazeau: In the Outaouais.
Senator Dallaire: Your presentation is very clear. First Nations people in general live on reserves but some do not. There are also the Metis and those in the non-status category. Of all those situations, which is the most urgent in the sense of the essential needs of First Nations people in health, education, social services and socio-economic stability?
Mr. Brazeau: First, all Aboriginal people in Canada are at risk. However, only those living on reserves are under the jurisdiction of the federal government and have been for a number of years. For every eight dollars that the federal government spends on reserves, it spends only one dollar off them. This is because of federal government policies that put First Nations people into different categories. The fact that I do not live on a reserve should not prevent me from at least having access to those services, but that is the position that the federal government took in the Kelowna Accord, and even before.
Senator Dallaire: If you live off-reserve, like any other citizen of Canada, do you still believe that you should be able to assert your right to self-determination? Could you choose the direction for your nation with more freedom and flexibility there or on a reserve?
Mr. Brazeau: It is difficult simply because of the fact that you live off-reserve, even though you made that personal choice for socio-economic reasons. For one thing, it is more difficult because you are treated differently by the various levels of government. For another, federal and provincial governments are always playing hot potato with each other to decide which jurisdiction each of us falls under. As a result, we have less access to opportunities because the federal government provides fewer services than those intended for people who live on reserves.
Senator Dallaire: It is argued that the Kelowna Accord is weak because, using its philosophy that seems almost paternalistic or colonial, it provides funds to people without necessarily building their self-sufficiency and their ability to stand on their own feet.
You have decided to chart your own course and to establish your own governance by living off-reserve. Is that a basic principle, bearing in mind that my second question will deal with resources?
Mr. Brazeau: We all agree that the Kelowna initiative to reduce the difference in the rates of poverty between First Nations and the rest of Canada's population is an effort that we all want to support. Putting a pile of money into the hands of chiefs, communities and organizations with no accountability plan to guarantee continued success that all Canadians could see with their own eyes, that is not a good way to go about it.
Those problems arose as soon as the Indian Act was imposed on the First Nations. Putting a bunch of money into communities with no accountability plan does not reduce poverty. A system of accountability would allow us to see for ourselves whether there is progress or not.
Senator Dallaire: But the basic debate is that you want to deal nation to nation. We want First Nations to be able to govern themselves; but still, the act was put in place 150 years ago. Perhaps they do not have all the skills, the methodologies, the bureaucracy and the piles of paper that we have. Do you not consider it a little paternalistic to assume that if we give them money, they are going blow it all, get drunk, have parties and do nothing afterwards? Is that not part of the process of taking risks when we invest, knowing full well that they do not necessarily have all the tools? Is that not part of the learning process? If they can do it in third world countries, how come we are not able to do it here?
Mr. Brazeau: Talking about dealing nation to nation is a valid point, but we are not there yet. The Algonquin nation of which I am a proud member is the nation as it was before the Indian Act. We are no longer that nation. We are scattered between nine different communities, some with a population of less than 300. That is not a nation in my view. This is a separate question that should be dealt with in the future and we do have to bring our true nations back together: Cree, Mi'kmaq, Algonquin and so on. We are not at that point because we have a reserve system that has torn our nations apart, and the Kelowna Accord will not make available any of the money that is needed for the effort to help communities re-establish their nations.
[English]
Senator Sibbeston: Hello, Mr. Brazeau. I assume that you participated in the Kelowna first minister's meeting and were in agreement. However, at some point after that, you indicated you were not in agreement. What made you change your mind?
In your speech, you mention lack of accountability a number of times and the need to put more money into the off- reserve population and to recognize that reality. Do you want to comment on that change?
Mr. Brazeau: You are right, senator. We were looking forward to the first minister's meeting in November 2005. However, the same week that the first minister's meeting took place, the former Liberal government pulled out all the accountability framework and structures in which we had participated during an 18-month process leading to the first ministers' meeting.
On the first day of the first minister's meeting we had no idea what the amount would be. It was only at the conclusion of the meeting where $5.1 billion was announced by the former Liberal government.
The Chair: For clarification, is that the Nault bill?
Mr. Brazeau: No, this is the Kelowna Accord.
The Chair: Are you referring to the Nault bill with regard to accountability?
Mr. Brazeau: No: In the round table process, there were round tables on negotiations, housing, education, economic development and accountability. However, it was during the same week of the first ministers meeting that the former Liberal government pulled the plug on the accountability frameworks. The five national Aboriginal organizations, the provinces and the federal government at least had discussions and agreed to it, but that was pulled the same week.
We had meetings with the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Andy Scott, until the eleventh hour of the first minister's meeting to ensure that the majority of Aboriginal Canadians in Canada would not be excluded from this process, those living off-reserve. The only thing that the minister at the time was able to do was sign a letter that we would be treated not equally, but equitably. Then three days after the conclusion of the first ministers' meeting, where we were told that we would be treated equitably, a deal was signed between the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada at the time to deal with governance issues.
We were left out, but we were told we would not be left out. That is what left a bad taste in the mouths of the congress — the leadership of the congress and the officers of the Aboriginal population — that they were excluded from this process.
Senator Sibbeston: Do you see anything in the policies or in the spending of the present government to deal with your concerns? Have you seen a change in the government's actions in the way they handle matters, particularly with your constituents of non-reserve Indians and Metis people? Are you optimistic with the situation now? Is government addressing your concerns?
Mr. Brazeau: First and foremost, there is always this issue of jurisdiction for the constituents that I represent that I mentioned earlier. That battle is an ongoing one. We are currently in the courts against the federal government on this issue of jurisdiction; so on that front, I hope that at least there will be resolution to that issue in the future.
In terms of specific investments from the current government, obviously, in terms of the off-reserve population, there was the investment of $300 million for off-reserve housing. That was a first, if I am not mistaken, in Canadian history — actual investments for the off-reserve population on the issue of housing.
That is one particular example. However, I think if we are to deal with Aboriginal issues and the negative component of what is plaguing Aboriginal peoples, we have to look at systemic issues — the heart of the problem — and that is the Indian Act.
I think there have been attempts by former governments, including the former Liberal government and minister Robert Nault, to bring about changes to the Indian Act that would result in more accountability and transparency. Again, the irony is that it was the former Prime Minister of this country who killed that piece of legislation. Therefore, I do not see much hope from here on except to say that if we do not deal with the systemic problems that plague our peoples — the Indian Act and the issue of accountability — we will not provide any hope for our peoples. That is why it is important to target these problems now.
Senator Peterson: Do you accept the premise that it will take a multi-jurisdictional approach to deal with the problems you presented? In other words, it will take the federal government, the provincial governments, the territories and the Aboriginal peoples to bring this change about.
Mr. Brazeau: Absolutely: We know that the federal government spends a lot of money on Aboriginal people. The same holds true for provincial and municipal governments. However, we need to deal with this issue of jurisdiction. It does not matter who does what, as long as everyone knows what their sphere of jurisdiction is in terms of being able to deliver at the end of the day.
Whether it is federal, provincial, municipal or First Nations governments delivering, as long as roles, responsibilities and mandates are clear for all the different levels of governments involved to deliver those services, that is what is needed. Right now, there is no synchronization between the different levels of government to do that.
Senator Peterson: Do you not believe that Kelowna was doing that? The former government brought these parties together and they debated this issue for 18 months. Obviously, some people were disappointed with some parts, but it is hard to achieve Nirvana. Basically, the government brought the policymakers together who had to deal with this issue.
Do you think that accountability, transparency and jurisdictional issues could have flowed from that accord as it moved ahead? I do not think it was meant to be, this is it and we are done. Was it not meant to be an ongoing procedure?
Mr. Brazeau: Unfortunately, I do not think so. If you ask any premier or any province how much money they were to receive under Kelowna, I do not think they would have the answer. If you ask any national Aboriginal leader how much money was to go to their organizations or communities, I do not think we are in a position to answer.
Let us not forget that the $5.1 billion was announced on the final day of the first ministers' meeting in light of a federal election looming. It is also important to mention that Parliament did not vote on the $5.1 billion to be invested in this initiative.
On the issue of accountability, I think that for the provinces — who fully participated, as did national Aboriginal organizations — most of them came into this initiative thinking that the federal government was to pay the bill for everything. I did not hear any premiers make any investments at that meeting, but I think they were all of the opinion that the federal government was to pay for everything.
Therefore, I am not as hopeful that the accountability issues would have been in place as the process went along. It would have been better to have a set of guiding principles on accountability from the get-go to guide us in the future.
Senator Peterson: Provinces figure that the federal government should pay for everything, not only Aboriginal issues.
If not Kelowna, then what is the template?
Mr. Brazeau: As I mentioned, the first step is to look at the Indian Act. We have lived under the auspices of the Indian Act for over 130 years now and, in 2008, we are still dealing with the same socio-economic issues that we were 130 years ago. We are still looking for the same equal opportunity as other Canadians. We are still trying to educate our peoples in the same manner that non-Aboriginal Canadians are educated.
That has been, front and centre, the problem for Aboriginal peoples. It guides an Aboriginal person from birth to grave. It lends little opportunity in terms of economic development or self sustainability. There are few natural resources whereby Aboriginal peoples can benefit in those reserve communities. I think we need to look at our own way of reconstituting our true historical First Nations, and I mentioned that point earlier.
I am an Algonquin person. The Algonquin Nation existed prior to the imposition of the Indian Act — one nation, one leader, one set of rules, a constitution and guidelines. Now we are fragmented into nine separate communities, each with their own streams of funding. Nine separate leaders have control and power over the people in terms of how they spend the money, where the money is spent and who receives the benefit from that spending.
That is not our way. That system has been imposed and it has divided and fragmented our peoples and communities. We need to eliminate the Indian Act and have a system in place where we can reconstitute our true historical First Nations as they were prior to the imposition of the almighty evil.
Senator Peterson: I agree with you totally on that point. My worry is that if we put everything else on hold waiting for that system, that situation also would be a concern. We need to deal with all these problems.
Senator Gustafson: One problem that you related was the provincial-federal disagreements on who is responsible. For 14 years, I served as member of Parliament for Souris—Moose Mountain that contained five reservations. The toughest challenge was to have the federal government and the provinces agree on who was responsible.
For example, about 10 per cent of one municipality went into a land settlement. They did not know who was to pay for various things, whether for the grading of roads, the ploughing of snow or all the other responsibilities that the municipalities had. They did not know who was responsible. Neither the federal government nor the provincial government would accept the authority for those responsibilities. I do not know how many phone calls were made, letters were written and meetings we attended. I do not know whether this problem has been solved.
Those kinds of problems come about, which the native people have no responsibility for themselves. They are caught between the two governments.
You indicated that problem but I would like to hear how serious it is.
Mr. Brazeau: It is serious. The bottom line is that everyone wants the authority but no one wants the responsibility. In terms of national Aboriginal organizations, we are tasked with the most difficult of positions. We constantly deal with this jurisdiction issue because of the constituents we have. Even those who are status Indians but live off-reserve are still caught up in this jurisdictional debate between the two levels of government, in particular.
However, we need to address, and have a dialogue with, the different levels of government on the issues of jurisdiction. We all know that the federal government spends a lot of money on Aboriginal peoples, as do the provincial and municipal governments. However, if we were open and transparent about how much is spent and on what, then we would be able to have at least an educated conversation about how to align best those resources that are currently spent to maximize benefits and results at the end of the day. Right now, if the issue of accountability is not dealt with at the different levels of government, then, there is probably a duplication of services provided and the different levels of government are not having the maximum effect they could have.
The Chair: I have a question before I go to Senator Lovelace Nicholas. What percentage of the total First Nations do you represent? Are you elected by the rank and file or by the chiefs?
Mr. Brazeau: First and foremost, 79 per cent of the total Aboriginal population, including Metis, Inuit and First Nations people, live off-reserve. Of the status Indian population, 54 per cent also live off-reserve. That 79 per cent of the population who live off-reserve are the constituents of whom I speak.
I am proud to say that, during the last assembly in 2006 when I was elected, only 10 people with the title of either president or chief were permitted to vote for me out of approximately 200 people. Therefore Aboriginal peoples who live throughout Canada, who volunteer their time, who are in work and service delivery organizations and are truly grassroots people can vote. They are the ones who elected me.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: First, my ancestors were Algonquin nation, as well.
You made a comment that people living on reserves are the only ones receiving all this funding. However, people living in these communities are poor. I do not think they have the opportunity to move out.
I am sure a lot of them would move if they had the chance and the resources. That is why I think we need more resources to help these people move on instead of living on reserves. I am sure they do not want to live on reserves because the reserves are poor.
Mr. Brazeau: That point is a good one and something I have struggled for over a number of years. I have heard chiefs all across this country ask for more money. I do not say they are right or wrong, but as an Aboriginal person, I want to see that the current funding invested in these communities is well spent and well used by the leadership across the country.
I do not paint all leadership as unaccountable. However, statistics from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs demonstrate that one-third of current reserve communities are in some sort of financial difficulty, whether that is third-party management or financial remedial measures to deal with their issues.
Therefore, I know for a fact that a lot of funding agreements done on a per capita based funding formula go to these communities. As an off-reserve Aboriginal status Indian, I am counted in the per capita funding that my reserve receives. However, because many people live off-reserve — and I heard this directly from First Nations citizens across Canada — they cannot access programs and services that their communities receive funding for. If they are not able to access those services, then where is the money being spent, and on whom?
I want to see greater debate on accountability and transparency with respect to current investments that are made because the Indian Act does not allow for that accountability and transparency. Many experts across the country have called this situation a recipe for corruption. Is it? That is up to individuals to ascertain for themselves but at least we should have that discussion. Unfortunately, these kinds of things happen.
Senator Hubley: Is the Auditor General's mandate limited in looking at different on-reserve and off-reserve funding and how it is spent?
Mr. Brazeau: I understand that the Auditor General has the mandate and authority to look into the books of any reserve community or Aboriginal organization, whether off or on reserve.
However, I believe a few years ago the Auditor General was quoted as saying she would not use her authority to audit the books of any community as a normal practice, per se.
Senator Hubley: Does the Auditor General perform an audit on the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, or on some segment of it, on a yearly basis? I am trying to determine if an Auditor General or that type of structure would benefit.
Mr. Brazeau: It would benefit. I think the current government's announcement that there would be an appendix added to those contribution agreements to give the authority to audit the books of any Aboriginal organization or First Nations community is a step in the right direction. That authority was not previously there.
Even though the Auditor General had the authority to audit those groups and communities, the Auditor General did not necessarily exercise it. At least there will be a safeguard in the contribution agreements starting on July 1, whereby there will be that authority. I think that authority is a positive sign and a positive step in the right direction that will benefit individuals.
Senator Dallaire: I am taken aback by this dimension of accountability. If we push your argument to the extreme, we would not give a cent to international development because we will never achieve close to that situation. Yet we still pour billions into developing nations, and we see the necessity of assisting nations out of abject poverty, building self capabilities and, ultimately, becoming nation states with the rule of law and so on.
Here in Canada, the cash is going to Aboriginals in Canada and, for this reason, suddenly, we need to establish rules that are, in my opinion, close to oppressive. I think the Auditor General is not going into the books of these nations out of fundamental respect. The Auditor General is not treating them as a bunch of kids or as another department of the government.
I am not anywhere near your philosophy in regards to accountability and responsibility, nor am I close on the funding levels. There are 1 million Aboriginals in this country. The budget is $9.7 billion for 1 million people we are supposed to be taking care of. That budget does not come close to the proportion of the money we invest in White people in this country. These people are starting from a position of disadvantage in places such as the North where the per capita funding process is stupid because it costs a huge whack more money per capita to live in the North than anywhere else.
Do you have a chip on your shoulder because we have not handled your off-reserve status Indian colleagues with the same diligence we have handled on-reserve people in terms of creating a more responsible way of handling that funding? It is more responsible compared to the paternalistic perspective you think we should take even more on Indian reserves? I hope I am not setting you up.
Mr. Brazeau: Absolutely not: First and foremost, there is no chip on this shoulder.
You are right. Approximately $10.1 billion is spent on Aboriginal peoples in Canada per year. However, 92 per cent of that funding goes directly to First Nations communities across Canada. To tie in the 1 million or 1.3 million Aboriginal peoples is somewhat —
Senator Dallaire: We pay for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs out of that money, which is one whack of money that does not come close to an Aboriginal person. Running the outfit may not be effective either.
Mr. Brazeau: With all due respect, I have been able to meet with a lot of Aboriginal peoples, and probably you have as well, who have come to our meetings, in particular, since last October. We have had information sessions on accountability with grassroots Aboriginal peoples, both on- and off-reserve, coming to share their personal experiences concerning the lack of accountability.
They talk about decisions made by their band councils, their own people, that discriminate against them. They ask why they do not have equal access to opportunities that their brothers and sisters have who live on-reserve. Maybe they did not vote for the right chief or are not part of the right family on those reserves. This situation is happening and I hear those stories from people.
If that is considered a chip on my shoulder, then I will take that responsibility on my shoulders and try to explain that and educate the Canadian public as best I can. To suggest that accountability is not important when we have individuals who want only to have a roof over their heads or to access post-secondary education funding to provide a better lifestyle for their young families is wrong. It is an issue of accountability and it is important to have this conversation.
Senator Dallaire: I never said accountability is not important. However, it cannot override the opportunity for people to make mistakes in areas where they are evolving a capability to be ultimately responsible governments to their people.
Senator Peterson: I think the funding envelopes were developed and were targeted. They were identified as education, children, health care, housing and infrastructure. I also feel accountability and clear reporting was a part of the discussion. It was identified as essential between the government and the Aboriginal peoples, and an issue that would be carried through. I feel it would be tragic if all the effort that has gone into this issue was lost.
The Chair: I do not think everything is lost. That debate is taking place aggressively across the country and what is good will come out of that debate, and what is not good, will not.
Mr. Brazeau, you say they pulled accountability immediately before Kelowna. I think accountability goes to the heart of the biggest problem, which is that INAC does not have the structures or the system in place to provide that accountability.
You are looking at a committee where all members are committed to improving the constituency we serve. What do you think is the best way that we, as a committee, or any group of parliamentarians can set about to make the significant systemic changes required to make things flow better and to benefit everyone, off-reserve and on-reserve? Where would we get a better bang for our buck in the overall dealings with our First Nations people?
Mr. Brazeau: That is a good question and I am not sure we have enough time to cover it all. I will try to be brief.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples dealt with this issue so it is not reinventing the wheel. It is creating a department of Aboriginal affairs as opposed to the current Department of Indian and Northern Affairs as we know it. It is seldom that we even use the term Indian now. We have substituted First Nation for Indian. Therefore, a department of Aboriginal affairs with different secretariats to deal with off-reserve, on-reserve, Inuit, women, Metis, et cetera is perhaps the way to go.
I cannot stress enough, as a young Aboriginal person who has lived this situation, the issue of accountability or lack thereof is the most important one. I think that too often, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs cuts a cheque to a community and they basically turn a blind eye and do not care what happens in regard to how the money is spent.
I am not painting the entire department like that, but I have heard testimony from individuals that they believe this situation happens. If we do not get at the heart of this issue of accountability, we are going nowhere fast and we will not provide any hope for people like me or the next generation, including my children. Historically, it has been politically incorrect to speak about this topic.
We are not painting everyone with the same brush, but there are systemic issues with respect to accountability. If leaders are accountable, they should not fear this message. However, those who are not accountable should fear this message because something is not right.
If they exercise their authority in an unaccountable manner or if they spend taxpayers' dollars in a manner they should not be, then we need to fix the situation for the benefit of our people because the opportunity in Canada is there. If we deal with this issue, then we will offer hope and we will create opportunities that our Aboriginal people deserve in this country.
The Chair: In conclusion, Joe Shirley, the head of the Navajo nation put it best. He said, I am not an Indian. It was some white men that got lost going to India that called First Nations people Indians. I do not live on a reserve. You put animals on a reserve. I live on my traditional lands.
I have a quick announcement. Senator Lovelace Nicholas is celebrating a birthday today along with Jean-Pierre Morin, our communications person. I wish a happy birthday to both of you.
National Chief Brazeau, thank you for your presentation and for coming here this morning. I know you have a busy schedule. You presented yourself excellently and answered the questions candidly and straightforward. We appreciate that. We hope to work with you in the future to make the necessary changes.
Senator Dallaire: I want to mention that we spend twice as much per year on unemployment insurance than we do on Aboriginal people.
The Chair: That is a good point for the record.
The committee adjourned.